50 Gender Socialization in Children

Keywords: Socialization, Family, Children

Gender is an influential force that affects nearly every aspect of one’s life. The roles, norms, and expectations regarding gender are instilled during formative years of an individual’s life. During these years, children are introduced to social expectations via primary socialization. Primary socialization usually occurs in a familial setting and is established by agents such as family and friends (Robson 2019). This type of socialization serves as the playbook which children refer to in order to adhere to social standards. Gender is a significant part of this playbook, with the ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ of gender roles being strategically ingrained since birth. It is no secret that gender influences the manner in which an individual is raised. However, expression of feminine and masculine qualities transcends homelife and is salient in social spheres such as sports, school, and peer groups. Although encounters with gender socialization are unique and exclusive to the individual, many experiences share some common qualities. This essay will examine how gender socialization impacts the livelihood of both men and women. Socialization is considered to be a pivotal factor in creating well adjusted and upstanding members of society (Robson 2019). At first glance, the process of socialization may appear to be a beneficial procedure as it is a convenient way to create a symbiotic society in which everyone follows common norms and values. However, there are some caveats to this practice.

Socialization can ensure that outdated norms and attitudes surrounding gender are passed down generationally. According to Knafo, Lervino, and Plomin (2005: 400), children are cognizant of their gender by age two and can conceptualize their assigned gender roles by age three. This conveys that primary socialization is a swift and fast acting force which instills traditional gender ideals at an early age. Additionally, these expectations are so prominent during a child’s upbringing that children who do not conform to either traditionally masculine or feminine roles are at risk of being diagnosed with a gender identity disorder (Knafo et al. 2005: 400). The socialization that transpires from traditional principles is often quite rigid and strict, with adherence to conventional gender norms being a top priority. Furthermore, Knafo et al. (2005: 401) also reported that children with older siblings of the same sex are often more prone to harsh gender socialization. This conveys that the family dynamic also significantly influences the type and degree to which gender roles are enforced on children. Although there is a general blueprint to gender socialization, it does vary based on cultural, ethnic, and familial backgrounds.

Gender socialization does not always create feminine women and masculine men. According to Knafo et al. (2005: 409), gender atypical children are children who possess qualities that are perceived to be abnormal for their gender. Through a study regarding these children, researchers were able to discern that parents socialize their sons more than their daughters to adopt the norms of their gender (Knafo et al. 2005: 409). However, males do not just feel the external pressures to conform when they are children. Instead, Jackson and Bussey (2020) suggest that men also experience the pressure to uphold masculine standards during adolescence significantly more than women do. This exhibits that masculinity is highly valued in society and that ideals pertaining to traditional masculinity are still incredibly prevalent today.

Furthermore, this study elucidated that men were focused on denouncing certain gender behaviours, especially ones that were viewed as ‘feminine’, while women felt pressure to adhere to specific gender behaviours (Jackson and Bussey 2005). In a patriarchal society, feminine qualities are both feared by men and forced upon women. This highlights the notion that femininity is perceived to be a burden and is socialized as such. In regards to conforming to traditional masculinity, an analysis of past data trends has concluded that traditional masculinity has remained a stable force since 1993 (Donnelly and Twenge 2016). However, this same study revealed that complying to traditionally feminine gender roles has depleted significantly since 1993 (Donnelly and Twenge 2016). The discrepancy in conformity to outdated roles solidifies the results from the previous studies as it alludes to the idea that men are afraid to deviate from norms that enforce them as dominant or superior. Socialization is a prevalent factor in everyone’s life, however some gender norms are perceived to be more obligatory than others.

Gender non-conformity is not only an outcome of primary socialization. This concept is also introduced in settings where secondary socialization is present. As Braun and Davidson (2016) suggest, the conformity to certain gender roles and norms plays a significant role in the socialization and acceptance process among peers. Although Knafo et al. (2005) propose that gender atypical students often find themselves in parental rifts, research suggests that cisgender students are usually quick to befriend a gender atypical girl in a classroom setting (Braun and Davidson 2016). However, it is crucial to note that gender nonconforming boys usually struggle in social settings as they are not as swiftly welcomed by their peers (Braun and Davidson 2016). This highlights the argument that society praises masculinity yet denounces femininity. The study conveys that gender socialization ensures that children view male norms as superior to female norms. Even gender conforming girls exhibit behaviours that reject femininity. For example, girls have the tendency to choose a male dominated activity such as sports over a feminine activity such as playing with dolls in order to convey their own criticism of feminine norms (Braun and Davidson 2016). In contrast to women, fitting into social situations heavily relies on whether or not men conform to masculine norms. However, women also suffer in this type of gender socialization as they are taught that their innate qualities are shameful and inferior. In order to curb this criticism, women will often choose to adopt more masculine qualities as it is a convenient way to earn peer acceptance (Braun and Davidson 2016).

Educational institutions are not the only setting that approaches the idea of gender nonconformity with suspicion and preconceived notions. According to Martin (2005), gender atypical children are perceived as worrisome because gender nonconformity is linked to homosexuality both implicitly and explicitly. The argument that society has reservations toward atypical children because they link them to homosexuality conveys that homophobia is still a rampant issue plaguing modern day communities. Intolerance and stigma towards gender identity and sexual orientation can be harmful to children because it stifles their gender creativity as they do not want to be labelled as an individual who deviates from their ‘designated’ sexual preference. In order to be perceived as socially acceptable, children must conform to either a feminine or masculine identity as well as reject homosexuality. The assumption from agents of socialization is that a certain gender identity directly correlates to a certain sexual identity (Martin 2005). Not only is this belief wrong, it also highlights why some parents are quick to sanction their child based on their gender expression. In order to dismantle this practice, society must work to dismantle homophobic perspectives as well as denounce the link between gender identity and sexuality.

Identifying as gender atypical is not an effortless feat, especially in a society that places high value on gender role conformation. In order to reject the gender standards inflicted on them by parents and other social structures, gender non-conformists will usually seek out environments in which they are free from social pressures (Knafo et al. 2005: 410). Furthermore, gender non-conformity is becoming increasingly understood and accepted within society. As Pyne (2014: para. 1) suggests, the public’s view of ‘gender independence’ is shifting from “disorder to diversity.” This highlights that although traditional gender norms are still the mainstream influence in society, our understanding of gender is beginning to transform.

Additionally, gender differences are socially constructed and have been maintained through macrosystems such as political, religious, and environmental institutions (Braun and Davidson 2005). By understanding this, it exhibits that these structures are the reason that traditional gender socialization has been able to maintain itself. It also alludes to the notion that by reworking these social structures, mainstream gender socialization can be transformed into something that is inclusive and respectful rather than discriminating and hindering.

Although socialization of gender atypical children is still widely executed through an unaccepting and homophobic lens, new studies show that attitudes and ideas regarding gender non-conformity are starting to evolve. As Pyne (2014) suggests, a growing number of parents are starting to accept the idea of atypical gender roles as being pivotal for human diversity. Critics of gender conformity are successfully disassembling the manner in which institutions, such as medical fields, view gender individuality (Pyne 2014). The push to rethink gender role socialization has led to medical professionals altering their approach and treatment of children who communicate gender individuality (Pyne 2014). The medical community is attempting to make active progress with regards to how they view gender nonconformist children. This is a critical step in creating a welcoming and accepting society for these children as most marginalized or oppressed individuals rarely find solace within the healthcare system. Advocates of gender atypical socialization propose that pressuring individuals, especially children, to adhere to traditional gender norms is “no longer considered ethical” (Pyne 2014: para. 8). This statement further solidifies that society is finally becoming committed to unlearning harmful stereotypes and destigmatizing gender independence. Diversity is a necessary aspect of society as it introduces new cultures, practices, and beliefs, which in turn aid in further developing humankind. In order to protect diversity, society must also protect children who choose to practice it.

Challenging institutional ideas surrounding gender independence is just one piece to the puzzle. The other significant agent that must reevaluate the means in which gender norms are portrayed is familial structures. Seeing as a large portion of norms, ethics, and values are instilled in the home, it is crucial that parents engrain positive attributes such as acceptance and open mindedness into their children. As Martin (2005) proposes, parents can create spaces that welcome gender nonconformity by both permitting and advocating for their children to transcend gendered behaviours. For example, denouncing the notion that toys are gendered (such as dolls for girls and trucks for boys) will promote children to explore their own gender identity more freely. Furthermore, teaching children that their atypical gender expression is something to be celebrated rather than criticized can aid in establishing positive attitudes such as confidence and self-assurance (Pyne 2014). Possessing these mindsets is crucial in relation to gender non-conforming individuals as societal expectations can have a detrimental impact on one’s mental health. In order to overcome this hurdle, it is salient that individuals feel supported by their friends and family as well as recognize that gender should not dictate how they choose to be portrayed.

During childhood, boys are socialized to inherit the ‘patriarchal dividend,’ which highlights that men are subject to more institutional, financial, and societal power simply because of their gender (Driscoll and Grealy 2021). Although it is clear that men are the only ones who benefit from this dividend, it does not mean that they do not experience the repercussions of patriarchal standards too. As Knafo et al. (2005) suggest, boys experience more parental pressure to adhere to their gender roles than girls do (p. 409). These gender roles include behaviours that are categorized as ‘toxic masculinity.’ Teaching boys that they have to be tough, emotionless, and dominant in order to be socially accepted leads to boys internalizing harmful and destructive thought patterns and perspectives. As Driscoll and Grealy (2021) argue, men are both at an advantage and a disadvantage in terms of the patriarchy. Although the patriarchy allows men to indulge in certain privileges that other genders cannot, they are also at the mercy of this structure as they are constantly being judged and pressured to conform to traditional gender roles (Driscoll and Grealy 2021). This pressure is incredibly prominent during childhood however it heightens when boys reach their adolescent years and are surrounded by peers, such as classmates, who display hyper masculine qualities (Driscoll and Grealy 2021). The presence of external influences other than family members highlights that toxic masculinity is socialized in both primary and secondary settings. Understanding that toxic masculinity is a byproduct of the patriarchy emphasizes that everybody suffers from this pervasive force, not just women and non-binary individuals.

Social dominance theory suggests that men exhibit more masculine behaviours and less feminine ones as they age because of the value that society places on masculinity (Braun and Davidson 2016). This theory directly coincides with the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’, which are behaviours and attitudes that assert men’s dominance over women (Braun and Davidson 2016). These two ideas can be used to explain why men are usually less inclined to deviate from traditional norms than women. Furthermore, it also conveys that women are more likely to embrace masculine qualities because they are generally more accepted in society. Hegemonic masculinity shapes men into aggressive and combative beings. In a study pertaining to the effects of toxic masculinity, many of the men who received feedback that they did not score as high on a masculinity test as their counterparts started to behave in a hostile and derogatory way towards the other participants (Cheryan et al. 2015). This suggests that the adverse effects of traditional gender socialization remain prevalent throughout one’s life. Individuals have to constantly communicate their gender role as well as ensure that they are still adequately complying to it. Additionally, with hegemonic masculinity being viewed as the conventional form of masculinity, it creates situations in which individuals feel pressured to appear tougher or more dominant than they actually are. Hegemonic masculinity has serious implications for society because it normalizes acts such as violence and inequality whilst simultaneously shaming men who do not fit the mold for this desired standard.

Another phenomenon of gender socialization is the transition from hyper feminine traits to masculine traits through the duration of elementary school. As Jackson and Bussey (2020) suggest, kindergarten and pre-k girls often present themselves as hyper feminine but become more interested in masculine activities as they get older. This occurrence is partially because children are introduced to secondary socialization via the education system and no longer rely on their parents to act as socialization agents. Furthermore, because masculinity is viewed as more valuable, girls may feel less pressure to adhere to feminine traits under the notion that participating in masculine activities is socially praised. It is socially advantageous for women to adopt masculine traits because society is quick to accept and applaud these behaviours (Jackson and Bussey 2020). However, as Jackson and Bussey (2020) suggest, the process of boys adopting feminine traits has an opposite reaction. This reiterates that masculinity takes precedence in social settings. Furthermore, girls feel pressure to conform while boys feel pressure to denounce femininity (Jackson and Bussey 2020). The juxtaposing effects that both genders experience with regards to deviation from traditional gender roles further asserts that toxic masculinity is a crucial, yet dangerous, element of the socialization process. This is vital to recognize as it exhibits how easily these values are cultivated and spread and how society must be more conscious of the principles and ethics that are instilled in individuals at a young age.

Gender socialization plays a pivotal role in children’s lives. Understanding gender can be a significant aid in navigating social and personal realms. However, gender socialization can have serious adverse effects on both individuals, groups, and communities. Dealing with social pressures to adhere to roles that are both outdated and demeaning can be stifling to individuals’ gender creativity and expression. In a patriarchal society, everybody feels the negative effects of gender socialization to some degree. However, it is important to note that society is becoming increasingly more accepting towards gender identities that do not fit the norm. This is crucial as it highlights that even patriarchal societies are able to evolve and become spaces where all individuals feel welcomed. Hopefully gender socialization continues to expand and evolve as society continues to progress in the future.

References

Braun, Summer S. and Alice J. Davidson. 2016. “Gender (Non)conformity in Middle Childhood: A Mixed Methods Approach to Understanding Gender-Typed Behavior, Friendship, and Peer Preference.” Sex Roles 77(1):16-29.

Cheryan, Sapna, Jessica Schwartz Cameron, Zach Katagiri and Benoît Monin. 2015. “Manning Up.” Social Psychology 46(4):218-227.

Donnelly, Kristin, and Jean M. Twenge. 2017. “Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis.” Sex Roles 76(9–10):556–65. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y.

Driscoll, Catherine, and Liam Grealy. 2022. “Stranger Things: Boys and Feminism.” Continuum (Mount Lawley, W.A.) 36(1):4–21. doi: 10.1080/10304312.2021.1965093.

Jackson, Emma F., and Kay Bussey. 2020. “Under Pressure: Differentiating Adolescents’ Expectations Regarding Stereotypic Masculine and Feminine Behavior.” Sex Roles 83(5–6):303–14. doi: 10.1007/s11199-019-01113-0.

Knafo, Ariel, Alessandra C. Iervolino, and Robert Plomin. 2005. “Masculine Girls and Feminine Boys: Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Atypical Gender Development in Early Childhood.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(2):400–412. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.400.

Martin, Karin A. 2005. “William Wants a Doll. Can He Have One? Feminists, Child Care Advisors, and Gender-Neutral Child Rearing.” Gender & Society: Official Publication of Sociologists for Women in Society 19(4):456–79.

Pyne, Jake. 2014. “Gender Independent Kids: A Paradigm Shift in Approaches to Gender

Non-Conforming Children.” The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 23(1):1–8. doi: 10.3138/cjhs.23.1.co1.

Robson, Karen L. 2019. Sociology of education in Canada. Sociology of Education in Canada. Retrieved November 13, 2022, from https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/robsonsoced/